RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-01163
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His general (under honorable conditions) characterization of
discharge be upgraded to honorable.
________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He is requesting his discharge be upgraded due to an early
marriage and emotional immaturity. He has had time to grow.
The applicant did not provide any documents in support of his
request.
The applicants complete submission is at Exhibit A.
________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 19 July 1985.
On 7 June 1988, the applicant was notified by his commander that
he was recommending him for discharge from the Air Force under
the authority of Air Force Regulation (AFR) 39-10 Administrative
Separation of Airmen paragraph 5-46, because of minor
disciplinary infractions substantiated by the applicants
constant involvement in behavior that was inconsistent with
acceptable Air Force standards as evidenced by nonjudicial and
administrative actions he received as follows:
a. Article 15 with 7 days extra duty and suspended reduction
in rank to the grade of Airman on 7 April 1987 for writing five
checks totaling $669.44 which were returned for insufficient
funds.
b. Article 15 with reduction in rank from Airman First Class
(E-3) to Airman (E-2), on 13 April 1988 for having a female
guest in his dorm room after visiting hours, falsifying BOQ
recertification documents and failing to have sufficient funds
to pay temporary duty (TDY) billeting expenses.
c. Misconduct leading to administrative actions included a
letter of reprimand, seven letters of counseling and four memos
for record for duty related infractions as well as incidences of
financial irresponsibility, a withdrawal of authority to bear
firearms, and a non-recommendation for reenlistment.
On 7 June 1988, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the
notification of discharge and was advised of his right to
consult counsel and submit statements for consideration. He
consulted counsel but chose not to submit a statement on his
behalf.
Subsequent to the file being found legally sufficient, the
discharge authority approved the separation and directed the
applicant be discharged with a general (under honorable
conditions) characterization of service without probation and
rehabilitation. The applicant was released from active duty on
7 July 1988 and was credited with 2 years, 11 months, and 19
days of active duty service.
Pursuant to the Boards request, the Federal Bureau of
Investigation (FBI) provided a copy of an Investigative Report
which is at Exhibit C.
A copy of the FBI Investigative Report was forwarded to the
applicant on 9 August 2012, along with a request for post-
service documentation for review and comment within 30 days
(Exhibit D).
________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:
1. The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by
existing law or regulations.
2. The application was not timely filed; however, it is in the
interest of justice to excuse the failure to timely file.
3. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to
demonstrate the existence of error or injustice. We took notice
of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of
the case; however, we find no evidence of an error or injustice
that occurred in the discharge processing. The applicant has
provided no evidence which would lead us to believe the
characterization of the service was contrary to the provisions
of the governing regulation, unduly harsh, or disproportionate
to the offenses committed. In the interest of justice, we
considered upgrading the discharge based on clemency; however,
there was no evidence submitted to compel us to recommend
granting the relief sought on that basis. Therefore, in the
absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis upon which
to recommend granting the relief sought.
________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:
The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not
demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice; that
the application was denied without a personal appearance; and
that the application will only be reconsidered upon the
submission of newly discovered relevant evidence not considered
with this application.
________________________________________________________________
The following members of the Board considered this application
BC-2012-01163 in Executive Session on 16 October 2012, under the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:
, Panel Chair
, Member
, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149 dated 6 March 2012.
Exhibit B. Applicants Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. FBI Report
Exhibit D. Letter, AFBCMR dated 9 August 2012.
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-01722
On 23 July 1984, the applicant was notified by his commander that he was recommending him for discharge from the Air Force under the authority of Air Force Regulation (AFR) 39-10 Administrative Separation of Airmen, paragraph 5-49d, for commission of a serious offense in the form of larceny. In the interest of justice, we considered upgrading the discharge based on clemency; however, there was insufficient evidence submitted to compel us to recommend granting the relief sought on that...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-00359
The commander did not recommend probation and rehabilitation because the applicant was given the opportunity through correctional custody, but failed to complete the initial entry phase of the program. On 16 May 1988, the discharge authority approved the separation and directed the applicant be discharged with a general (under honorable conditions) discharge without probation and rehabilitation. AFPC/DPPRS complete evaluation is at Exhibit...
AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-04569
On 13 July 1989, the applicant was discharged from active duty with a general (under honorable conditions) discharge. On 2 March 2011, the applicant was given an opportunity to submit comments in response to the FBI Report and about his post service activities (Exhibit D). Furthermore, we do not find clemency is appropriate in this case since the applicant has not provided any evidence concerning his post-service activities.
AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC 2010 02752
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-02752 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to honorable and his narrative reason for separation (Misconduct Pattern of Minor Disciplinary Infractions) be changed. She served 2 years, 5 months and 7 days on active duty. On 23...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-01801
On 29 March 1989, the discharge authority directed he be discharged with a general discharge. On 1 December 1989, the Air Force Discharge Review Board reviewed and denied the applicant’s request that his discharge be upgraded to honorable. _________________________________________________________________ The following members of the Board considered Docket Number BC-2007-01801 in Executive Session on 26 July 2007, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: Ms. B J White-Olson, Panel Chair Ms....
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-01255
On 28 June 1988, the applicant was discharged from the Air Force with a general (under honorable conditions) discharge in the grade of airman basic. ________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice; that the application was denied without a personal appearance; and that the application will only be reconsidered upon the submission...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-00744
Based on the available evidence of record, it appears the discharge was consistent with the substantive requirements of the discharge regulation and within the commander's discretionary authority. In the interest of justice, we considered upgrading the discharge based on clemency; however, we do not find the evidence presented is sufficient to compel us to recommend granting the relief sought on that basis. Exhibit D. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 19 Jun 2012.
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-02339
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-02339 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO IN THE MATTER OF: ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His general under honorable conditions discharge be upgraded to honorable. As of this date, no response has been received by this office (Exhibit D). We took notice of the applicant’s complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we...
AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2008-00198
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2008-00198 INDEX CODE: 106.00 XXXXXXXXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His under honorable conditions (general) discharge be upgraded to honorable. On 9 June 1983, the applicant was notified of his commander's intent to recommend him for a general discharge for misconduct – minor...
AF | BCMR | CY2009 | BC-2008-02668
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS At the time he was disciplined, he requested that he be discharged and was subsequently rendered a general discharge. The following members of the Board considered Docket Number BC-2008-02668 in Executive Session on 16 December 2008, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: